Jim Inhofe

We have an energy proposal, a policy, and it is called all of the above. We want green jobs. We want wind. We want geothermal. We want solar energy. But we also want oil and gas.

I think if we go down this path, it is going to be bad. And African-Americans are going to pay, and Hispanics, are going to pay a disproportionate share.

Cap-and-trade will not result in net job creation any more than it will result in reduced energy costs.

We are not fostering an environment that is friendly to business.

Perhaps the green jobs that the Waxman-Markey proponents are referencing aren't actually U.S. jobs, but jobs in China.

Now, this is not me. This is said by Mr. Chu, a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

So to me, no action by the United States in slowing down and limiting our own economy through a cap-and-trade scheme is going to change China's position.

The authors of this bill, to me, are overstating their case, and the taxpayers should be concerned about taking another major gamble in allowing for this massive energy tax scheme to pass.

The American people do not want Congress gambling with their future.

The Waxman-Markey bill has been entitled the American Clean Energy and Security Act. It is also known as ACES. And ACES to me is a bad bet, a bad bet for enhancing U.S. global competitiveness and for creating jobs.

Claims that GHG cap-and-trade can boost total employment have become commonplace . . . these claims are incorrect.

Let's be clear: Waxman-Markey is a tax increase on the American people.

The faulty logic of cap-and-trade has no basis in history.

The Democrats should familiarize themselves with the work of Christina Romer.

If you want to do this, which is come out and get rid of, reduce the CO2, just have a tax on it.

If Government imposes taxes and mandates, increases bureaucracy and spends without restraint, then Government can transform the economy and create jobs.

I think it is important to----

I look forward to working through and discussing the many challenges ahead.

The devil is in the details. Unfortunately, this devil has the potential to devastate our economy, reduce the standard of living for most or all Americans, and could make us more reliant on not only foreign energy, but also foreign…

Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions.

What are we doing here?

What effect would that have on the overall worldwide reduction in CO2, and her response was it wouldn't have.

One of the things that concerns him the most is, we haven't talked about the specifics.

I went over and met with the Farmers Coop regional group on Friday.

The suggestion that the 1 billion ton limit on domestic greenhouse gas offsets that are in the Waxman bill is roughly equivalent to sequestration potential of planting 170 million acres of trees.